Case 4114294/2019 · Employment Tribunal
69(scot) claim dismissed on withdrawal rule EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4114294/2019 Mr P Grant v Represented by: Mr A McCormack Solicitor Oracle Corporation UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4114294/2019
- Decision date
- 1 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
69(scot) claim dismissed on withdrawal rule EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4114294/2019 Mr P Grant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Grant v Oracle Corporation UK Limited (Case No. 4114294/2019) was disposed of by a short judgment dated 1 July 2020. The tribunal recorded that the claim had been withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The extracted text contains no findings on the merits and no remedy award. On the case context, the underlying claims were unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, but the judgment text does not separate them or make distinct findings on each.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Case context identifies an unfair dismissal claim. The extracted judgment text itself says only that 'the claim' had been withdrawn and was dismissed under Rule 52, without distinguishing individual claims; no merits finding is recorded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Case context identifies a disability discrimination claim. The extracted judgment text itself says only that 'the claim' had been withdrawn and was dismissed under Rule 52, without distinguishing individual claims; no merits finding is recorded. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.